So, May has committed to a 3.4% annual rise to the NHS budget. Said the money would come from:1. Brexit savings2. Economy growth3. Tax increase

In that order. So, any shortfall after we take Brexit and growth into consideration will result in higher taxes for everyone.

Is that a really clever way to put the spotlight on the cost of Brexit? By showing exactly how the hit to economic growth completely wipes out the savings from not sending money to Brussels each week, in the most visible way possible - extra tax taking money from people's wages each month.

Did... May do something clever. That doesn't seem right...

(Also, provided the tax increase doesn't hit the worst off, eg it mostly lands on the middle/upper classes, I'm very much in favour of raising taxes to fund the dangerously starved NHS. So, I'm... actually really happy about something the Conservatives have done. This feels weird.)

There's something about politics I don't understand, and that's why Davis and Johnson resigning is putting pressure on May. They were two of her fiercest critics, surely them removing themselves from power is good for May. Half of the Labour party front bench quit at one point, and hey, Corbyn's still leader, and with a much more pro-Corbyn front-bench. Maybe Johnson and Davis are hoping this will somehow lead to a vote of no confidence in May? I don't see most of the Tory MPs voting to remove her somehow. I doubt most of them want a leadership contest right now.

I would guess Davis has a genuine point by going "I can't do this, I'm quitting because I can't support the approach that I would be forced to do while in the government."

BoJo is probably doing it for political gain, and he would think exactly what you described. May seemed to have a victory, the people in her cabinet finally shut up and got in line. This shows that that is not actually the case and that weakens the image of May.

I haven't read in on what position Dominic Raab holds in Brexit, but the small part I did read on another forum, was that saying he's a Libertarian is an understatement, and that breaking everything down is positive in his mind. If that's even half true, appointing him is no better than begging Davis to stay and allowing him to do things the way he wants.

This was (and thanks to BoJo resigning, still is) the perfect moment for May to appoint people that agree with the Chequers plan, and this would make both her and her cabinet strong. Probably strong enough to shut up all the hardline brexiteers, in the way that they won't come up with a motion of no confidence before Brexit is completed.

Mutex wrote:There's something about politics I don't understand, and that's why Davis and Johnson resigning is putting pressure on May. They were two of her fiercest critics, surely them removing themselves from power is good for May.

If she survives, it probably will leave her stronger. She may not survive the political pressure though.

And there is the old saying 'keep your friends close and your enemies closer': She at least had a measure of control over them while they were in the cabinet; There is still respect for the notion of collective responsibility and being too openly disloyal would have been frowned upon. Now they have free reign to run amok.

I think DD is probably genuine; He has resigned on issues of pure principle before. BoJo is political opportunism personified though. May was always going to leave or get booted prior to the next election; Worst case scenario for BoJo now is he gets to run an extended election campaign. Best case (for him) is he's in number 10 by the end of the year...

But who wants to fail at Brexit? All those people letting May fail intending to sweep in and fix everything (or "done as much to fix it as I could in the time you gave me, guv... You had a right cowboy work on this for you last time, I see. Didn't even keep the crossbeam going out of skew on treadle!") and if she goes then one of them needs to step up to the plate, assume full responsibility, try not to get (re)backstabbed by the others (or outright sabotaged) and have the courage of their convictions (or bare-faced effrontery, like now but more so) to do all this with the appearance of complete and calm confidence.

If I were a betting man… I'd give it a rest for a while, until things calm back down again.

The BBC's political editor Laura Kuenssberg said Monday's resignations might actually turn out to be good news for the PM, leaving her with a more pliable and supportive cabinet, while her future could depend on how Brussels reacts to her Brexit proposals.

Jeremy Hunt, who has been health secretary for the past six years, was a Remain campaigner in the 2016 EU referendum. He has since said he is a convert to the Brexit cause.

His appointment means the four great offices of state - prime minister, chancellor, foreign secretary, and home secretary - are all held by ministers who voted to stay in the EU.

In his first comments as foreign secretary, Mr Hunt said he would be standing "four square" behind the prime minister "so that we can get through an agreement with the European Union based on what was agreed by the cabinet last week at Chequers".

Staunch Leave supporter Dominic Raab was promoted to the cabinet as Brexit secretary. But most of the top jobs in government are now held by ministers who had backed Remain - including the new Health Secretary Matt Hancock.

sardia wrote:Why do journalists imply that the UK government is going to walk back brexit? Merely knowing they opposed The brexit vote without context is misleading.

What does 'walk back Brexit' even mean? Everyone involved has publicly committed to Brexit happening, it's just that noone has defined what Brexit actually is.

The kind of Brexit the hardliners want simply isn't possible (eg. what to do about NI), so it's a question of what aspects get compromised on. One side is prepared take a hit of any magnitude in order to 'regain sovereignty' (as if any country is without obligations in this globalized world) and the other sees that as cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Note that Brexiteers are fearing becoming a "Vassal State", under the compromise agreements, arguably more Vassally than if we were still the major backbone (and thorn in the side!) to the EU as before the vote. And more, even, than if every current nation had become a region in the USofE in that projected future.

Well, yes, the Remain side spelled that out loud and clear prior to the vote. Far from 'losing sovereignty' by being part of the European legislature we played a major part in shaping it, with opt-outs on most of the stuff we didn't like. We were not the red-headed step-child of Europe we were the spoilt little brat. It literally was having our cake and eating it. And we even got a rebate on our payments!

If immigration was out of control that was completely in our own hands: We neither took advantage of European rules allowing us to limit it nor did we cut back on non-EU immigration. Instead of politicians being honest about their own mistakes they cowardly blamed the EU and got caught out when the public bought it.

This is the biggest decision for a generation and both parties are as split as the country is. In hindsight there should have been a Government of National Unity to sort this out. As it is we're either heading for a fudge that disappoints everyone or an outright disaster. Best case scenario is probably that we go into 'transitional arrangements' that look rather like now and somehow keep getting extended...

elasto wrote:Best case scenario is probably that we go into 'transitional arrangements' that look rather like now and somehow keep getting extended...

And then all mentions of Brexit are quietly dropped at some point down the road? How much certainty would that period give to companies like Airbus? There was a good segment on Marketplace in the US (it was done by a BBC journalist, so probably can be found there, too) about the struggle - already - to recruit Romanian fruit-pickers by British farmers.

There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

elasto wrote:Best case scenario is probably that we go into 'transitional arrangements' that look rather like now and somehow keep getting extended...

And then all mentions of Brexit are quietly dropped at some point down the road? How much certainty would that period give to companies like Airbus? There was a good segment on Marketplace in the US (it was done by a BBC journalist, so probably can be found there, too) about the struggle - already - to recruit Romanian fruit-pickers by British farmers.

This is what I'm referring to. Every time someone from the UK government resigns, people think that maybe you can walk back the Brexit. Has anything happened that shows the break off from the EU is in doubt? Is the remain faction getting stronger?

It seems the vast majority of people who voted would vote the same way again, but the people who were undecided are more likely to vote remain now. I don't have the exact numbers, but there's a pretty good chance it would go to remain now. So,the whole "will of the people" thing is kinda insincere rhetoric, if you can believe that.

Unfortunately, we'd have to have a major party that's actually got any vaguely pro-EU policies in their manifesto to start with. Both Labour and Conservative have leaving the EU in their manifesto and not staying in the EEA either. But hypothetically, if say Labour changed their manifesto to staying in the EU and got a majority vote, they could claim that gave them the mandate to withdraw article 50 and stay in the EU. Or if a second referendum was in their manifesto they could have that.

There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

This is what I'm referring to. Every time someone from the UK government resigns, people think that maybe you can walk back the Brexit. Has anything happened that shows the break off from the EU is in doubt? Is the remain faction getting stronger?

The assumption is that former backers of Remain will now push for a "soft" Brexit, something like the EFTA. That's not the same as reversing Brexit, which does not appear to have strong support.

Also, I am not convinced that the EU will be very supportive of a reversal of Brexit, unless it's a very convincing turnaround. The risk of another Brexit attempt a few years later is just too high. People might prefer to see the UK in the EFTA for some time, until it has made up it's mind.

The Brits (remain and leave) talk a lot about what Brexit means for them. They easily forget that it's a fucking pain for the rest of the EU as well. The lack of clarity and lack of cooperation is not helping there, and it will be held against future UK governments as well.

Just saw a feature today about the problems of people from EU countries living in GB, not knowing how things will develop for them. What i haven't heard yet is how GB citizens in other EU countries will fare; will they be thrown out or require visas and working permits? or will they get special dispensation by the EU?

On a stage once graced by Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix and Joni Mitchell, Conservative MP Andrea Jenkyns is singing. It’s a song she wrote herself, “for the true patriots”, although she admits she hasn’t performed it in public since the days she “wore red rubber trousers”. It’s called The Spell, and she says she hopes it puts “a spell on the cabinet”.

After segueing into the theme from The Godfather, the member for Morley and Outwood concludes this somewhat unlikely gig with her personal take on Theresa May’s frantic weekend of negotiations: “Let’s face it – the deal is shit!”...Confused? You’re not alone. We’re at the Big Brexit Party, a night of eclectic entertainment organised by the group Artists for Brexit at the Troubadour club in west London. And it’s not just Jenkyns’ performance that stands out: the sheer range of performance and opinions out on display seem to be as messy and unclear as Brexit itself.

Liri wrote:What would it take to convince Labour to add either of those?

A change of leadership, which is currently impossible. Corbyn is a good man but he confuses consistency of principles (good things like actually making ordinary people's lives better and trying to avoid wars) with unwillingness to change strategy (which is a bad thing when circumstances change). He's been against the EEC/EC/EU since the 1970's and that's not going to change now when victory in that part of his struggle is so close.

There are a lot of left-wing myths about the EU just as there are right-wing myths and they're deeply ingrained. Just as the UK was apparently uniquely unable to set immigration controls on new EU member countries and uniquely unable to choose its passport colour, it's also uniquely unable to give state aid to soften the impact of market fluctuations on strategic industrial sectors like steelworks. The Morning Star is as pro-Brexit as the Daily Mail; the latter sells a vision of an all-white 1950's village green England with CofE church bells chiming and endless cricket games, the former imagines a proletariat uprising seizing control of the means of production and leading us to sunny uplands of centralised five year plans. And all the while, the shysters actually in charge are operating a national asset-stripping operation while their hedge funds rake in ever more money from ever more economic uncertainty. It's grim.

Perhaps things properly burning down will finally kill off the myth of Tory economic competence and Corbyn's popularity with younger peoples gives him or his chosen successor a unique opportunity in 2022 to rebuild from the ground up as a socialist paradise; perhaps May will finally force the ERG nutters to understand that and drag the UK back to EFTA. At least here in Wales and up in Scotland we know where the lifeboats are when we need off the sinking ship, it's the people in Cornwall and the north of England that are really going to get smacked around the face for the next decade or so.

Well, Wales was pro-Brexit (muttering about "what has the EU done for us?" as they passed the plaques declaring their polling-station, a leisure centre built on the land where their local pit had been prior to the national wind-down of the industry, to be substantially EU-funded) and it has a little less claim to swing back out of the Union (as per Scotland, a conscious founder member of the Union) or perhaps ability to lodge with the cousins who moved away a while ago (Norn Irlnd wanting some o' that historical Free State thang, at least while they get their thoughts together) than the other non-English nations.

It'd be easier to disengage the principality of Wales than the county of Cornwall, but that'd still be asking a lot, and would likely lead directly to Cornwall and Yorkshire seriously considering doing something definite with their boundaries. And thus maybe even something like the ancient kingdom of Cumbria considering following Kernow. While the East Anglians would force the hated immigrants (including Midlanders!) to dig a ditch around their western side and then depart across it to leave them (and them alone) to appreciate their beets and broads and enjoy the thrill and risk of diving into their now even slightly shallower gene-pool.

the BBC article wrote:As a result, the UK is divided into the under-45s who, on balance, favour staying in the EU, and the over-45s, who want to leave.

This black-and-white reporting is starting to really bug me. The UK is not "divided into" those groups - the proportion changes gradually throughout and the crossover point is around 45. The narrative that "leavers are just old people" and "they'll all die soon" is ageist and misleading. For one thing, it doesn't attempt to separate cohort from age: people may switch sides as they get older. There's similar self-congratulation from regions, e.g. London and Scotland, which "voted to remain", even though it was only around 60:40. Go us!

Both sides need to get beyond merely dismissing their opponents - the fact is we're split down the middle and need to work out what to do about it. Had it been 52:48 the other way in the referendum, we'd have been in almost as bad an identity crisis, though without the clock ticking quite so threateningly.

It's the kind of mess I was exploring with my "green/yellow, high/low" scenario here and here. In general though, people didn't want to discuss it without knowing which partisan side was which.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.